\section{Scientific Considerations}
\label{sec:scientificcons}

We will begin describing our research from a research philosophy perspective. This will help us understand and elaborate on our research approach and lead to valid and relevant epistemological considerations. We will use the two books \textit{``Research Methodology - A Project Guide for University Students''} by \cite{KUADA} and \textit{``Research Methods for Business Students''} by \cite{SAUNDERS} as our main methodological references.

\subsection{Research Philosophy}
The main ontological questions of matter is (1) how we perceive the reality \citep[p. 84]{KUADA}, and (2) what assumptions we make about the way in which the world works. The underlying question is if we are doing subjective or objective research or a combination.

The formulation of our research questions is the main guidance for an appropriate reflection upon the research philosophy \citep[p. 109]{SAUNDERS}. If we recall the main research question,

\begin{quote}
How can we make a conceptual maturity model for assessing open data maturity of a smart city ecosystem, which normatively can function as a guideline for relevant actors?
\end{quote}

\noindent then it it can be argued that this is an objective study as the primary goal is to make an assessment model, which can function as a normative guideline. Our research has an overall normative aim, where it wants to provide guidelines for decision-making and outline what a rational decision-maker shall do under some identified conditions in order to attain a given objective \citep[p. 42]{KUADA}. Furthermore, the whole idea to treat a city as an ecosystem with a systems theory approach is forcing us to see social entities as systems consisting of constituent elements. And so, we accept the existence of an objectively accessible reality \citep[p. 86]{KUADA}, which is our primary field of interest. These arguments lead towards an objective ontology, where we are able to generalise and presume that an objective reality exists and can be increasingly known through the accumulation of more complete information \citep[p. 110]{SAUNDERS}. \bigskip

\noindent So far we have argued that an objective philosophy is needed for developing knowledge that can answer our main research question. But the fact that we want to model the behaviour of a smart city, which is a social system with no well-defined structure, can be an argument for adopting a non-functionalist approach to knowledge construction, where we need to understand how people (relevant actors) define situations in which they are involved and the meanings they derive from their experiences \citep[p. 77]{KUADA}. 

Our sub-questions are also based on social constructions such as sustainability and incentive structures:

\begin{quote}
\begin{description}

\item[\textit{Subquestion 1:}] How can open data be used as a sustainability-enabler in the context of smart cities?

\item[\textit{Subquestion 2:}] What are the most important incentive structures for attracting support for such a model among smart city actors?

\end{description}

\end{quote}

\noindent The primary goal of our research is to generalize, but only to a degree that makes sense when dealing with complex social matters. The duality of the field of our research results in a structuralist approach to social science, where we see human societies (e.g. smart cities) as composed of complex systems of interrelated parts \citep[p. 77]{KUADA}. The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy describes structuralism as

\begin{quote}
\textit{``the belief that phenomena of human life are not intelligible except through their interrelations. These relations constitute a structure, and behind local variations in the surface phenomena there are constant laws of abstract culture}. \citep{STRUCTURALISM}
\end{quote}

\noindent A structuralist research paradigm allows us to optimize the current reality by means of a model, which encapsulates the complex social phenomena on top of it. At the same time we can work with the understanding of a smart city, and what it contains, as a social construction and use an epistemology, which combines a positivist and an interpretive approach. We take a pragmatic approach to our research, which gives us the ability to work with variations in our ontology, epistemology, and methodology \citep[p. 109]{SAUNDERS}.


\subsection{Epistemological Choice}

The epistemology builds on the research philosophy and concerns what constitutes acceptable knowledge in the field of research \citep[p. 112]{SAUNDERS}. We want to generalize in terms of a conceptual model for a social system, but in the process we want to acknowledge that we can only investigate our subject matter through the lenses of system actors and try to capture their meaning while being critical to their expressions. We have to acknowledge that what people experience are sensations, the \textit{``images of the things in the real world, not the things directly} \citep[p. 115]{SAUNDERS}. Thus, a critical realist epistemology fits to our field of research. \bigskip

\noindent \cite{SAUNDERS} describe the critical realist approach to knowledge as follows:

\begin{quote}

\textit{``Critical realism claims that there are two steps to experiencing the world. First, there is the thing itself and the sensations it conveys. Second, there is the mental processing that goes on sometime after that sensation meets our senses.} \citep[p. 115]{SAUNDERS} 

\end{quote}

\noindent And so, we inherently have to capture the essence of the mental processing when developing our knowledge to be able to have an understanding of the world. In that sense, we also acknowledge that we, throughout our research, mentally process our sensations of the subject matter. This leads to a discussion of our methodological decisions.

\subsection{Methodological Decisions}
\label{subsec:methoddecisions}

Here we want to go more into concretely describe the reasons underlying our choice of specific methods in the research process \citep[p. 59]{KUADA}. It is of course based on the ontology and epistemology.

\subsubsection{Research Approach}
A discussion of our research approach might help to understand how we use our theory (chapter \ref{chap:theory}) and our literature review (chapter \ref{chap:literaturereview}). In typical cases the research approach is obvious and straightforward to align with the subject matter and the primary research objectives \citep[p. 124]{SAUNDERS}. In other cases a combination of \textit{deduction} and \textit{induction} is needed and appropriate to fulfil a research objective \citep[p. 125]{SAUNDERS} - our research arguably falls into the last category. \bigskip

\noindent As previously mentioned, there is an underlying hypothesis which function as the primary driver of our research: A quadruple-helix maturity framework for cross sector open data collaboration can lead to sustainable smart city initiatives. The deduction of this hypothesis and our goal of testing it promotes a deductive research approach. We have observed some possible causal relationships between variables which we want to test and generalize.

On the other hand, our research question is based on the \textit{assumption} that such a framework is needed, and we want to explore how it can be constructed. Our research question function as an entry into the subject matter, which can provide us with a direction for further knowledge development. We intentionally avoid imposing preconceived ideas on our research and focus on spending much time on our data analysis and let our understanding of the subject matter emerge from the data. This promotes an \textit{inductive} research approach, where we want to build theory on the basis of the data we gather \citep[p. 100]{KUADA}. We want to build theory, which can highlight how cross-sector collaboration can be catalysed by means of an action framework or as we call it: a normative maturity model. We acknowledge that our data analysis affects our understanding of the subject matter and this can lead to hypotheses that are not directly related to our research question. These can be tested in the future. \bigskip

\noindent The outline of our theoretical framework in chapter \ref{chap:theory} is not meant as a determinant and limiter of our data analysis, but rather as secondary data. It is based on the knowledge we got from the literature review (chapter \ref{chap:literaturereview}) and is a token of preliminary knowledge development and construction. Therefore, our research approach can be considered as \textit{abductive} \citep{ABDUCTION} where we find the best explanations for the (evident) fact that potential value is not derived from current open data initiatives in smart cities. These explanations provides us with tools and a means to examine this potential value and get closer to a solution to harvest it.

\subsubsection{Grounded Theory}
Grounded theory as a social sciences methodology was discovered and developed by \cite{GLASER} for theory building through a combination of induction and deduction. \cite{CORBIN} have elaborated on the concept and goals of grounded theory and explain its actual goal is:

\begin{quote}

\textit{``to guide researchers in producing theory that is `conceptually dense' -- that is, with many conceptual relationships. These relationships are, as in virtually all other qualitative research, presented in discursive form: They are embedded in a thick context of descriptive and conceptual writing. [This] means that grounded theory researchers are interested in patterns of action and interaction between and among various types of social units (i.e., `actors').''} \citep[p. 278]{CORBIN}

\end{quote}

\noindent This methodology fits to our research and goes hand in hand with the systems approach to smart city conceptualisation. A grounded theory methodology allows us to use our research question as a means to develop theory, which can explain the identified issues and simultaneously function as a means to elaborate on existing theory and modify it to come closer to a solution to the issues \citep[p. 273]{CORBIN}. \bigskip

\noindent In our thesis we will use a grounded theory approach to understand and conceptualize the behaviour of system actors. This affects the structure of the analysis, which we will come back to in chapter \ref{chap:analysis}. This is a valid way to provide a picture of the system, which is necessary for us to elaborate on system optimizations and provide suggestions to institutional changes.

\subsubsection{Hermeneutics}

Our approach to knowledge construction is, as mentioned earlier, that we throughout the research mentally process our sensations of the subject matter. Even though grounded theory emphasize a completely neutral approach to the field of research, we acknowledge that we are biased by our pre-understanding and we let that pre-understanding develop as we gather and analyse data. The structuralist paradigm and the critical realist epistemology also propose that the reality can only be understood by exploring the social relationships on top of it. A ubiquitous hermeneutic methodology, which sets the frame of the whole thesis allows us to incrementally work with our prejudice and bias of the subject matter \citep{HERMENEUTICS}. \bigskip

\noindent In the hermeneutic lenses we have been under the influence of a certain pre-under\-stan\-ding from the beginning of our research - we were biased. When investigating the subject and in the creation of our research question the old prejudice developed into a new one, which again could be elaborated on by means of a literature review and theory. This incremental process is referred to as the hermeneutic circle where knowledge construction is based on evolving pre-understandings and therefore striving for accuracy \citep{HERMENEUTICS}. We will stay in this circle of development through the rest of our research and it goes hand in hand with the grounded theory approach.

\subsection{Qualitative Research Interview as Empirical Data Ga\-thering}

As indicated throughout this section, we have to do qualitative research to be able to capture the essence of our subject matter. We will go a bit more into the nature of qualitative research and use \cite{KVALE} to explain how we can use qualitative research interviews to enable us to understand how an answer to our research question can look like. \bigskip

\noindent \cite{KVALE} deals with a specific type of interview style called a \textit{semi-structured interview}, which is neither an open everyday conversation nor a closed questionnaire. It seeks to \textit{``obtain descriptions of the interviewees' lived world with respect to interpretation of the meaning of the described phenomena''} \citep[p. 11]{KVALE}. Proper planning the semi-structured interview is important. The first thing to do is \textit{thematizing}, which consists of \textit{``formulating the purpose of an investigation and the conception of the theme to be investigated before the interview starts''} \citep[p. 35]{KVALE}. We have done that prior to all our interviews and the result of the thematizing can be found in the interview guides (Appendix \ref{app:interviewguides}), which is the product of \textit{designing} the interview \citep[p. 36]{KVALE}. We have transcribed all the interviews and the transcriptions can be found in Appendix \ref{app:transcriptions}.\bigskip

\noindent In our case the semi-structured interviews are both \textit{explanatory}, because there is an underlying aim of testing a hypothesis, and \textit{exploratory} in that we introduce an issue, an area to be charted, or a problem complex to be uncovered \citep[p. 38]{KVALE}. We have aimed for more descriptive interviews, which can support the grounded theory approach and contribute to the development of new grounded theory.

All our interview are, due to the nature of our research, mostly conceptual. We want to \textit{``chart the conceptual structure of a subject's conceptions of phenomena''} \citep[p. 71]{KVALE} and narratives such as `smart city', `sustainability', and `open data'. We of course frame the interview to be centred around our research question. \bigskip

\noindent During the analysis we will assess the validity and reliability of all the interviews \citep[p. 122]{KVALE}. We will strive for being critical to the interpretation of the meanings of the interviewees. At the same time we have to use meaning condensation to be able to structure the analyses of the empirical data in a way that clarifies our research progress \citep[p. 108]{KVALE}. 